{"id":"bb2911f1-5658-441d-b77d-4f20f9969b8b","arxiv_id":"2607.05977","paper_version":1,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":4.0,"correctness_risk":"unknown","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":9,"one_line_summary":"TESS and ground-based photometry of two low-mass eclipsing binaries yield improved stellar parameters, evidence for tertiary companions via the light-time effect, and a flare frequency of one per 40 hours for NSVS 01031772.","lead":"This paper used TESS satellite data and years of ground-based telescope observations to refine the physical properties of two small, cool eclipsing binary star systems, finding evidence for unseen companion objects orbiting both. A smart generalist might read it to understand how astronomers detect hidden planets and brown dwarfs by monitoring subtle shifts in eclipse timing.","discovery_kind":"unclear","skeptic_critique":{"model":"glm-5.2","headline":"The N103 O-C decomposition into a 19-yr LITE plus an 11-yr magnetic residual is degenerate with only ~20 years of data, and the Applegate mechanism is dismissed without quantitative testing.","rationale":"The reader correctly identified the LITE-vs-magnetic-activity ambiguity as the load-bearing concern. I agree with this assessment and with the CONDITIONAL verdict. The paper itself acknowledges this ambiguity but does not resolve it quantitatively. For N103, the decomposition is degenerate given the data span, and the Applegate mechanism is dismissed without computation. For 2M0410, the periodic signal is better established (3 cycles) but the mass ratio discrepancy and possible spot-induced timing shifts add uncertainty. The paper's own Conclusions contain hedged language that undercuts the strength of the third-body claims. The verdict should remain CONDITIONAL: the observational data and analysis are solid, but the third-body interpretations require confirmation (spectroscopic monitoring, direct imaging, or quantitative exclusion of magnetic mechanisms) before being accepted. No adjustment to the verdict is needed.","tokens_in":29132,"tokens_out":4509,"duration_ms":311553,"concrete_test":"Quantitatively compute the Applegate (1992) mechanism for N103: using the observed O-C semi-amplitude (A3 = 153 sec) and modulation period (P3 = 19.4 yr), derive the required ΔP/P = 2π·(O-C)/P_mod and the corresponding quadrupole moment change ΔQ, then compare ΔE ~ GM²/R × (ΔQ/Q) to the available magnetic energy budget of the M4 components (using the stellar parameters from Table 4). If the required energy is within the stellar magnetic budget, the LITE interpretation for N103 is not unique. Separately, for 2M0410, test whether spot migration (the modeled spot longitudes shift from 290° to 60°–120° between sectors) can produce timing shifts comparable to the 66-sec O-C semi-amplitude by injecting synthetic spots into the PHOEBE model and measuring eclipse-center shifts.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The central claim for N103 requires that the 19-year O-C signal (semi-amplitude 153 sec) is caused by LITE rather than magnetic activity. The paper decomposes the O-C diagram into a 19-yr sinusoid (attributed to LITE, with e3 fixed to 0 due to insufficient phase coverage) plus an 11-yr residual of ~60 sec amplitude (attributed to magnetic activity or unknown mechanisms). With only ~20 years of data covering roughly one cycle of the 19-yr signal, this two-sinusoid decomposition is not unique: a 19-yr magnetic cycle is astrophysically plausible for active M4 dwarfs, and the frequency separation between 11-yr and 19-yr signals is poorly resolved over a 20-yr baseline. The paper dismisses the Applegate mechanism qualitatively (\"Usually, this mechanism cannot contribute significantly to the observed period changes in many eclipsing systems\") but never computes the required ΔQ for the observed 153-sec semi-amplitude, nor compares it to the magnetic energy budget of the M4 components. The paper's own Conclusions undercut the claim: \"N103 is also a good example that not all sinusoidal variations of the period...can be automatically attributed to a multiple (sub)stellar system.\" For 2M0410, three cycles are covered, making the periodic signal more secure, but the mass ratio discrepancy with Meng et al. (2021) (q=0.95 vs. 1.79 from the same partially-covered RV data) is unresolved and directly affects the third-body mass estimate. Additionally, the 2M0410 O-C semi-amplitude is only 66 sec, comparable to spot-induced timing shifts, and the paper models moving dark spots (Table 6) without discussing their potential contribution to ETVs.","agreement_with_reader":"agree"},"referee_report":{"model":"glm-5.2","summary":"This paper presents TESS and ground-based photometric observations of two low-mass eclipsing binaries, NSVS 01031772 (N103) and 2MASS J04100497+2931023 (2M0410). The authors derive improved absolute parameters for the components via PHOEBE modeling, analyze eclipse timing variations (ETVs) to infer third-body companions via the light-time effect (LITE), test dynamical stability of a possible quadruple configuration for N103, and characterize flare activity. The dataset is extensive: 453 eclipse times for N103 and 121 for 2M0410, spanning roughly two decades. The PHOEBE solutions and flare statistics appear carefully done. The LITE interpretation, particularly for N103, requires more rigorous justification.","tokens_in":29499,"tokens_out":2632,"duration_ms":150866,"significance":"The paper provides a valuable long-term photometric dataset for two low-mass eclipsing binaries, a class important for testing stellar evolution models. The improved absolute parameters for N103 are consistent with previous work (Lopez-Morales et al. 2006), and the flare frequency analysis (1 per ~40 hours) is a useful contribution. The N-body stability analysis for the proposed quadruple system in N103, performed with the XITAU code, is a commendable effort that conclusively rules out the (2+1)+1 hierarchy. The 2M0410 ETV signal covers three cycles, making its periodicity more secure. However, the central third-body claims, especially for N103, rest on interpretations that are not yet fully substantiated.","major_comments":[{"comment":"§4.1, Table 3, Fig. 2: The N103 LITE fit has a period of 19.4 ± 1.0 years, but the observational baseline spans only ~20 years (discovery in 2005, data through 2025). This means roughly one full cycle is covered, and the eccentricity was fixed to zero due to insufficient phase coverage. With only one cycle, the sinusoidal fit is not uniquely determined, and the decomposition into a 19-yr LITE plus an 11-yr residual (Fig. 2, bottom panel) is degenerate: the frequency separation between 11-yr and 19-yr signals is poorly resolved over a 20-yr baseline. The authors should explicitly quantify how well-constrained the 19-yr period is given the baseline, and discuss whether alternative single-period or multi-period decompositions are statistically excluded. The current treatment does not demonstrate that the 19-yr LITE interpretation is preferred over a purely magnetic origin for the entire O-C","section":null},{"comment":"§4.3: The Applegate (1992) mechanism is dismissed qualitatively with the statement 'Usually, this mechanism cannot contribute significantly to the observed period changes in many eclipsing systems.' No quantitative test is performed. For N103, the observed period change is ΔP = 0.16 s and the LITE semi-amplitude is 153 s. The authors should compute the required quadrupole moment change ΔQ (using the Applegate or Lanza 2020 formalism) for the observed O-C amplitude and compare it to the available magnetic energy budget of the M4 components. This is a standard diagnostic and is necessary to distinguish LITE from magnetic modulation, particularly given that the 11-yr residual is already attributed to magnetic activity.","section":null},{"comment":"§5, Table 5: The mass ratio for 2M0410 derived here (q = 0.95 ± 0.12) differs dramatically from Meng et al. (2021) (q = 1.79 ± 0.01). The paper states 'we cannot confirm the previous results' but does not adequately explain the discrepancy. Since the third-body minimal mass M3,min depends on M1+M2 (Table 3), this discrepancy directly affects the claimed ~0.1 M_sun companion. The RV curve from Meng et al. is described as 'partially covered' (§3.3, Fig. 8), which may explain the difference, but the authors should explicitly discuss whether their q is reliable given the incomplete phase coverage, and how the large uncertainty (±0.12) propagates into M3,min.","section":null},{"comment":"§7, Conclusions: The statement 'In our case, N103 is a pair of normal red dwarfs, where the observed period changes cannot be explained by a multiple system' appears to contradict the paper's central claim that N103 hosts a third body detected via LITE. If this sentence refers only to the 11-yr residual (i.e., a fourth body is excluded), it should be reworded for clarity. As written, it undermines the LITE interpretation without explanation.","section":null}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"§4.1: The coplanar assumption (i3 ≈ i) is stated without justification. Since M3,min scales as sin^{-3}(i3), even moderate misalignment would significantly change the mass estimate. A brief discussion of this assumption's impact would be appropriate.","section":null},{"comment":"Table 3: The LITE parameters list internal 'fit errors' in parentheses, but it is unclear whether these account for correlations between A3 and P3, which are typically strong in LITE fits. Clarification on the error estimation method would help.","section":null},{"comment":"Fig. 2: The caption mentions a 'blue dotted curve' representing the combined LITE + next variation, but the distinction between the solid and dotted curves in the top panel is difficult to discern. Consider using different line styles or colors.","section":null},{"comment":"§6, Table 8: Entry 8 lists a flare with amplitude 0.03 mag in clear filter and duration 16.7 min, but the rise time is listed as 0.7 min with 'Rise' instead of 'Max' in the Event column. Please clarify whether this is a partial flare detection.","section":null},{"comment":"Table 6: The PHOEBE cost function values vary substantially across sectors (350–785). A brief comment on whether this indicates sector-dependent spot model quality would be useful.","section":null},{"comment":"§2.2: The LAMOST radial velocities for 2M0410 (–17.0 and +10.4 km/s) are mentioned but not used in the analysis. Clarify why these were excluded.","section":null}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"The reader's 'circularity' concern about the LITE mass function is not, in my assessment, a genuine circularity problem — the mass function depending on fitted LITE parameters is standard practice in ETV analysis. The real issue is whether the LITE interpretation itself is physically justified, particularly for N103 where the baseline barely covers one cycle and the Applegate mechanism is not quantitatively tested. The 2M0410 case is more secure (three cycles covered) but is undermined by the unresolved mass ratio discrepancy. I would encourage the editor to require the quantitative Applegate test and a more honest framing of the N103 LITE uncertainties before acceptance."},"author_rebuttal":{"model":"glm-5.2","summary":"We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The comments are well-taken and we address each point below. In summary: (1) we will add a quantitative discussion of the period constraints and alternative decompositions for the N103 O-C diagram; (2) we will perform a quantitative Applegate/Lanza test for N103; (3) we will expand the discussion of the 2M0410 mass ratio discrepancy and its propagation into M3,min; and (4) we will reword the contradictory sentence in the Conclusions. All four points require revision.","responses":[{"response":"The referee is correct that the 19-yr period is only marginally resolved given the ~20-yr baseline, and we agree that the current manuscript does not adequately address this limitation. We will revise the manuscript as follows. First, we will explicitly state that the observational baseline covers approximately one full cycle of the proposed LITE, which means the period is poorly constrained — consistent with the formal uncertainty of ±1.0 yr but with significant covariance between period, amplitude, and phase that the formal error does not capture. Second, we will compute and report the residual sum of squares for alternative single-sinusoid fits (e.g., periods in the range 10–25 yr) and for two-period decompositions with different period combinations, to show quantitatively which decompositions are statistically excluded. Third, we will add an explicit statement that the 19-yr LITE interpretation is a working hypothesis rather than a uniquely determined solution, and that a purely magnetic origin for the full O-C signal cannot be excluded on the basis of the ETV data alone. We note that the 11-yr residual period was identified only after subtracting the 19-yr LITE, and we agree that the frequency separation between 11 and 19 yr is poorly resolved over a 20-yr baseline. We will state this degeneracy explicitly. The dynamical stability analysis in Section 4.2, which rules out the (2+1)+1 quadruple hierarchy, is independent of this decomposition issue and remains valid.","revision_made":"yes","referee_comment":"§4.1, Table 3, Fig. 2: The N103 LITE fit has a period of 19.4 ± 1.0 years, but the observational baseline spans only ~20 years. With only one cycle, the sinusoidal fit is not uniquely determined, and the decomposition into a 19-yr LITE plus an 11-yr residual is degenerate. The authors should quantify how well-constrained the 19-yr period is and discuss whether alternative decompositions are statistically excluded. The current treatment does not demonstrate that the 19-yr LITE interpretation is preferred over a purely magnetic origin."},{"response":"We agree that a quantitative Applegate test is necessary and should have been included. We will compute the required ΔQ using the Applegate (1992) formalism for the observed O-C amplitude (153 s for the 19-yr LITE component, and ~60 s for the 11-yr residual) and compare it to the available magnetic energy budget of the M4 components. We will also apply the Lanza (2020) reformulation, which provides a more physically motivated framework for convective-envelope stars. Specifically, we will compute the required luminosity modulation and surface magnetic field strength, and compare these to observationally plausible values for M4 dwarfs. If the required ΔQ exceeds what is physically plausible for the M4 components, this strengthens the LITE interpretation; if not, we will state that both mechanisms remain viable. We will present these calculations in a revised Section 4.3 with the quantitative results tabulated.","revision_made":"yes","referee_comment":"§4.3: The Applegate (1992) mechanism is dismissed qualitatively. No quantitative test is performed. The authors should compute the required quadrupole moment change ΔQ and compare it to the available magnetic energy budget of the M4 components."},{"response":"The referee is correct that this discrepancy requires more thorough discussion. The root cause is that the LAMOST radial velocities from Meng et al. (2021) cover only a portion of the orbital phase (as shown in Figure 8 and noted in Section 3.3), which limits the reliability of the mass ratio derived from the RV curve. Our PHOEBE solution uses these same RVs together with the TESS light curves, but the incomplete phase coverage means the mass ratio is poorly constrained — hence the large uncertainty of ±0.12. We will add a detailed discussion of this issue, explicitly stating that our q = 0.95 ± 0.12 should be considered tentative pending complete phase coverage of the RV curve, and that the discrepancy with Meng et al. (2021) likely arises from the different weighting of the limited RV data in the PHOEBE fit versus their independent analysis. Regarding the propagation into M3,min: since M3,min depends on (M1+M2)^(2/3) in the LITE mass function, we will compute and report the range of M3,min implied by the ±0.12 uncertainty in q. We will also note that complete spectroscopic coverage is needed to resolve this discrepancy definitively, as we already state in the Conclusions.","revision_made":"yes","referee_comment":"§5, Table 5: The mass ratio for 2M0410 derived here (q = 0.95 ± 0.12) differs dramatically from Meng et al. (2021) (q = 1.79 ± 0.01). The paper does not adequately explain the discrepancy. Since M3,min depends on M1+M2, this discrepancy directly affects the claimed ~0.1 M_sun companion. The authors should discuss whether their q is reliable given incomplete phase coverage and how the large uncertainty propagates into M3,min."},{"response":"We agree that this sentence is confusingly worded and appears to contradict our own LITE claim. The intended meaning is that the 11-yr residual in the O-C diagram — after subtracting the 19-yr LITE — cannot be explained by a fourth body (as demonstrated by the dynamical instability analysis in Section 4.2), and is instead likely magnetic in origin. The sentence was meant to echo the findings of Pulley et al. (2025) and Yates et al. (2026) regarding magnetic mechanisms, but as written it undermines the LITE interpretation. We will reword this passage to make clear that (a) the 19-yr LITE signal is attributed to a third body, (b) the 11-yr residual is attributed to magnetic activity or an unknown mechanism, and (c) a fourth body is excluded by the dynamical stability analysis. We thank the referee for identifying this inconsistency.","revision_made":"yes","referee_comment":"§7, Conclusions: The statement 'In our case, N103 is a pair of normal red dwarfs, where the observed period changes cannot be explained by a multiple system' appears to contradict the paper's central claim that N103 hosts a third body detected via LITE."}],"tokens_in":29328,"tokens_out":1487,"duration_ms":321816,"standing_objections":[]},"desk_editor":{"model":"glm-5.2","letter":"The main things to know: this paper presents an impressive long-term eclipse-timing dataset (453 eclipse times for N103, 121 for 2M0410) plus TESS photometry for two low-mass eclipsing binaries, and uses it to propose third-body companions via LITE in both systems. The flare statistics for N103 (157 flares across 13 TESS sectors, ~1 per 44 hours) and the dynamical instability ruling out a quadruple N103 are genuinely useful contributions. The PHOEBE solutions are standard but well-executed, and the N103 absolute parameters agree well with Lopez-Morales et al. (2006). The 2M0410 LITE signal covers three cycles, which makes that periodicity reasonably secure. The N-body stability analysis using XITAU is a real computational effort and the conclusion that a (2+1)+1 hierarchy is unstable is solid. Credit is due for the observational campaign itself — this kind of systematic small-telescope monitoring over 15+ years is what makes these period studies possible, and the data tables are extensive. The soft spots are real but concentrated. For N103, the 19-year LITE period is only partially covered (~20 years of data for one cycle), eccentricity was fixed at zero, and the residual 11-year signal is attributed to magnetic activity without any quantitative test. The stress-test concern about degeneracy between a 19-yr LITE and a 19-yr magnetic cycle lands here — the paper dismisses the Applegate mechanism qualitatively (one sentence: 'usually this mechanism cannot contribute significantly') but never computes the required ΔQ for the 153-second semi-amplitude. That calculation is straightforward and its absence is the main gap. The paper's own conclusions undercut the third-body claim somewhat: 'not all sinusoidal variations...can be automatically attributed to a multiple system.' For 2M0410, the mass ratio discrepancy with Meng et al. (2021) (q=0.95 vs. 1.79) is unresolved and directly affects the third-body mass estimate. The RV curve is only partially covered, and the paper acknowledges this. The 66-second O-C semi-amplitude is also in the range where spot-induced timing shifts could contribute, and the paper models spots on 2M0410 without discussing their potential ETV contribution. That said, the 2M0410 LITE is more secure than N103 because three full cycles are covered. The reader's CONDITIONAL verdict is about right. The paper is a solid observational contribution with a third-body interpretation that needs confirmation (spectroscopic monitoring or direct imaging) to become definitive. It deserves a serious referee who should ask for the Applegate ΔQ calculation and a clearer discussion of spot-induced ETVs for 2M0410.","headline":"Solid observational dataset and useful flare statistics, but the LITE interpretation for N103 is not well-constrained and the Applegate alternative is not quantitatively tested.","tokens_in":30178,"tokens_out":663,"would_cite":false,"duration_ms":136719,"reading_group":"maybe","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":["97.10.-q","97.10.Nf","97.10.Gz","97.10.Tm"],"model":"glm-5.2","headline":"Brown dwarf and red dwarf may orbit two low-mass eclipsing binaries","keywords":[],"falsifier":"If future eclipse timing data for N103 fail to follow the predicted downward limb of the 19-year LITE sinusoid, or if the 2.1-year O-C signal in 2M0410 changes shape or amplitude in a way inconsistent with a Keplerian third-body orbit, the LITE interpretation would be undermined. Direct non-detection of the 2M0410 companion via radial velocities or high-contrast imaging at the predicted separation and mass would also challenge the third-body hypothesis for that system.","tokens_in":29297,"feed_emoji":"🌑","tokens_out":1212,"duration_ms":200049,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"This paper analyzes TESS space photometry and over 200,000 ground-based CCD frames for two short-period, low-mass eclipsing binaries — NSVS 01031772 (N103, two M4 dwarfs) and 2MASS J04100497+2931023 (2M0410, two K5 dwarfs) — to refine the absolute masses and radii of their stellar components and to investigate the cause of their eclipse timing variations. The authors model the observed minus calculated (O-C) eclipse timing residuals as a light-time effect (LITE), the periodic delay caused by the eclipsing pair orbiting the barycenter of a triple system with an unseen companion. For N103, they fit a 19.4-year LITE period and derive a minimum companion mass of roughly 50 Jupiter masses, placing it in the brown dwarf regime. For 2M0410, three full cycles of a 2.1-year LITE are covered, yielding a minimum companion mass of about 0.1 solar masses, consistent with a late-M red dwarf. They also test whether N103 could be a (2+1)+1 quadruple system by adding a fourth body to explain residual timing variations, but N-body integrations show such a configuration is dynamically unstable on short timescales. Separately, the paper characterizes surface magnetic activity: N103 flares at a mean rate of one event per 40 hours with 157 flares detected across 13 TESS sectors, while 2M0410 shows essentially no flares but exhibits persistent starspot modulation requiring a dark spot in the light-curve model. The authors note that the O-C variations, particularly for N103 where the 19-year LITE cycle is only partially covered by the roughly 20-year data baseline, could alternatively arise from magnetically induced period changes rather than a third body, and they acknowledge this ambiguity explicitly.","feed_headline":"Two low-mass binaries may host unseen brown dwarf and red dwarf companions","feed_subtitle":"Eclipse timing variations in NSVS 01031772 and 2MASS J04100497 hint at tertiaries of 50 Jupiter-masses and 0.1 solar-masses, though magnetic","key_machinery":"The light-time effect (LITE): when an eclipsing binary orbits a common barycenter with a distant companion, the extra light-travel path periodically delays or advances the observed eclipse times, producing a sinusoidal pattern in the O-C (observed minus calculated) diagram. The amplitude and period of this signal constrain the companion's mass and orbit.","core_discovery":"The central claim is that sinusoidal eclipse timing variations in both N103 and 2M0410 can be modeled by the light-time effect, implying unseen tertiary companions: a ~50 Jupiter-mass brown dwarf with a 19.4-year orbit for N103, and a ~0.1 solar-mass red dwarf with a 2.1-year orbit for 2M0410. A secondary finding is that the two astrophysically similar systems display strikingly different magnetic behavior — N103 is flare-active with symmetric light curves, while 2M0410 is flare-quiet but spot-dominated with distorted light curves — suggesting that surface activity manifestations diverge even among comparable low-mass binaries.","pith_inferences":[],"forward_implications":["If the LITE interpretation for N103 is correct, the system hosts one of the few known brown dwarfs orbiting a low-mass eclipsing binary, useful for constraining brown-dwarf formation and cooling models at the stellar/substellar boundary.","The 2M0410 companion, with a well-covered 2.1-year orbit and a minimum mass near the hydrogen-burning limit, is a strong candidate for direct detection via high-resolution imaging or radial-velocity follow-up, which would confirm or refute the third-body hypothesis.","The contrast in magnetic activity between N103 (flare-rich, spot-poor) and 2M0410 (flare-poor, spot-rich) provides an empirical data point for how tidal locking and inter-binary magnetic field topology may differently manifest in otherwise similar low-mass systems.","The instability of the proposed quadruple configuration for N103 demonstrates that dynamical stability testing is essential when fitting multiple LITE signals, and that residual O-C structure should not automatically be attributed to additional bodies."],"fun_headline_variants":["TESS data hint at unseen companions in two low-mass binaries","Two eclipsing binaries show signs of third bodies and divergent flare activity","Eclipse timing variations suggest brown dwarf and red dwarf companions","Low-mass binaries NSVS 01031772 and 2MASS J04100497 may host tertiary bodies","TESS light curves reveal candidate tertiaries and split magnetic behavior"],"cache_read_input_tokens":0,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The paper assumes that the sinusoidal eclipse timing variations are dominated by the light-time effect from an orbiting third body, rather than by magnetic activity cycles in the stellar interiors altering the quadrupole moment and thus the orbital period. For N103, this assumption is especially fragile because the proposed 19.4-year LITE cycle is only partially covered by the available data, and the authors themselves note that an 11-year residual signal could be magnetic in","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["TESS data hint at unseen companions in two low-mass binaries","Two eclipsing binaries show signs of third bodies and divergent flare activity","Eclipse timing variations suggest brown dwarf and red dwarf companions","Low-mass binaries NSVS 01031772 and 2MASS J04100497 may host tertiary bodies","TESS light curves reveal candidate tertiaries and split magnetic behavior"]},"model":"glm-5.2","effort":"high","cost_usd":0.0,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":991,"prompt_tokens":889,"completion_tokens":102,"prompt_tokens_details":null},"tokens_in":889,"tokens_out":102,"duration_ms":50106,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":null,"cache_read_input_tokens":0,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-07-08T19:27:11.012220+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"glm-5.2"},"falsifier":"If future eclipse timing data for N103 fail to follow the predicted downward limb of the 19-year LITE sinusoid, or if the 2.1-year O-C signal in 2M0410 changes shape or amplitude in a way inconsistent with a Keplerian third-body orbit, the LITE interpretation would be undermined. Direct non-detection of the 2M0410 companion via radial velocities or high-contrast imaging at the predicted separation and mass would also challenge the third-body hypothesis for that system.","supporting_citations":[],"review_version":1}